VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-61598: djust · Mass Assignment

Affects djustSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.0.7 soon.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 22:58 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.0.7

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Sep 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 1 Nov 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade djust to 1.0.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
djust-orgdjust	Affected <1.0.7	Fixed in 1.0.7
PyPIdjust`pkg:pypi/djust`Other threats	Affected <1.0.7	Fixed in 1.0.7

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

Upgrade to djust version 1.0.7 or later, where this issue is fixed. As a workaround, explicitly set the allowed_model_fields attribute on every view using dj-model or subclassing LiveView to restrict which fields can be updated by clients. Avoid storing sensitive authorization or ownership state in public view attributes accessible via dj-model bindings.

Description

djust provides Phoenix LiveView-style reactive server-side rendering for Django with Rust-powered performance. Prior to version 1.0.7, `djust.mixins.model_binding.ModelBindingMixin` provides a default `update_model` event handler and is part of the LiveView base MRO, so every LiveView exposes it. It `setattr`s a view attribute whose name is client-supplied (`field`), gated only by: reject `_`-prefixed names; reject a 14-entry denylist of framework internals (`FORBIDDEN_MODEL_FIELDS`); optional `allowed_model_fields` which defaults to None = allow all; and `hasattr` existence. As a result, a client can set any public, existing view attribute — not just the fields actually bound with `dj-model=` in the rendered template. The denylist covers framework plumbing but nothing about developer business/authz state, and the allowlist is opt-in (off by default). A developer who binds one `dj-model="search"` input and also keeps `self.account_id` / `self.is_admin` / `self.total_price` as view state does not realize a client can set ALL of them via `{type:event, event:"update_model", params:{field, value}}` over the WebSocket. Type coercion matches the target attribute's type (so `"true"` -> bool True), aiding the attacker. This issue is fixed in djust 1.0.7. As a workaround, set `allowed_model_fields` explicitly on every view using dj-model (or subclassing LiveView) to the minimal list of bindable fields; do not keep authorization/ownership state in public view attributes that share the view with dj-model bindings.

Impact

An attacker with low privileges can remotely modify arbitrary public attributes of a LiveView instance, including sensitive authorization or business logic state, potentially leading to unauthorized actions or privilege escalation within the application. This undermines the integrity of server-side state management in djust applications.

Summary

The vulnerability in djust versions before 1.0.7 arises from the ModelBindingMixin's update_model event handler, which uses setattr to modify view attributes named by the client. Filtering is limited to rejecting underscore-prefixed names and a small denylist of framework internals, with an optional allowlist that defaults to allowing all public attributes. Consequently, clients can set any public attribute, including sensitive business or authorization state, via WebSocket events. Type coercion matches the attribute's type, facilitating exploitation. The issue is resolved by explicitly setting allowed_model_fields or upgrading to version 1.0.7 or later.

CWE-915Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
Implementation
If available, use features of the language or framework that allow specification of allowlists of attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified. If possible, prefer allowlists over denylists.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation · Input Validation
For any externally-influenced input, check the input against an allowlist of internal object attributes or fields that are allowed to be modified.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Sep 2026, 14:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-915

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats